Benjamin Kabak is a lawyer and the account's author (follow along: @NYTOnIt; he also maintains a blog at 2nd Avenue Sagas). He explains in the account's bio: "Sometimes stories in newspapers are just *that* obvious." Many of the parodies mock the Times' most "gee whiz" lifestyle-related reporting: "GUYS, turns out not drinking soda is much better for you than drinking soda. The Times is ON IT." Or earlier this month: "GUYS, teenagers have messy bedrooms, and The Times is ON IT."

Turns out NYT didn't have much of a sense of humor about the account. NYTOnIt has been around for more than a year, but NYT lawyers recently filed a trademark complaint with Twitter. The @NYTOnIt account was taken down last night and then reinstated today after less than 12 hours. Kabak ultimately had to remove the stylized "T wearing a beret" logo that he created.

The idea that Kabak was confusing anyone with the logo seems dubious, given the prominent disclaimer above. "Mostly I'm just miffed that NYT couldn't directly contact me," wrote Kabak. "It's dumb."

Twitter wouldn't comment on the matter. The New York Observer first reported on the takedown and received confirmation from NYT about making sure its copyright is protected. However, Kabak's tweets seem to indicate it was a trademark complaint. "Feel free to spread the word over how the country’s largest newspaper feels threatened by a small Twitter account right now," Kabak told the Observer.

Word certainly spread fast. Within hours, new-media pundit Jeff Jarvis took it upon himself to fill in as the new @NYTOnIt. Kabak raised the interesting question of whether TheTimes really can have a valid trademark in a single letter of a known font (Old English/Old Towne). In any case, he isn't too interested in fighting over it—instead, he'll just get a new logo. "GUYS, I think it's time for an avatar contest," he tweeted this morning. "Anyone want to be ON IT?

Well, taking a logo and putting a silly hat on it is asking for trouble. I mean, you *could* fight that (make an art project out of it and you'll probably win the case) but on the other hand, a logo is a logo. If dropping the logo is the only thing required to be able to continue, freedom is not affected here in any way.

Still, the NYT is just being idiotic here. This is just like offering free help with PR for someone.

I just looked up "butthurt" in the urban dictionary, just to be sure it really fits as perfect as I think it does.

Seriously. There's some guy on twitter mocking the NYT. He identifies his account as a parody account. He's not doing anything that would really be bad, he just makes fun them in a soft and civil manner. How would you react as the NYT?Who on earth does the Times' PR, when they "release the hounds" onto him instead of just sending an email asking him to use a different logo? Haven't they learned that acting hostile towards individuals who aren't perceived evildoers is making you look like an asshat worn by a douche?

Besides that, what's the legal situation in the US for parody and satire?I'd guess the question about trademark infringement is not so clear, as that T and being so closely related to the Times touches on borders, but aren't parody and satire at least partly exempt by some interpretation of free speech or whatever applies here?I'm serious and curious.

So, you can claim a single letter from a known font as your trademark? That doesn't seem right. Anyway, since he has altered the logo by adorning it with a beret, I don't find this to be infringing.

Apparently a shape can be patented, so why can't a letter be trademarked?

(A) : You can't trademark anything that is a basic component of speech, in and of itself. So 'The' is not able to be trademarked by itself, much less a single letter (you can bet if you could, Apple would have a trademark on the letter i). You can, of course, create a stylized 'The' and trademark that, which leads us to...(B) : The NYT did not create the font they are using for their T, they used an existing publicly available font, so they have no creative rights to the actual design of the T.

If the NYT wants to trademark their logo, they need to actually put some creativity and originality into it in the first place. Create their own font and use that for the T.

EDIT : Actually, I stand corrected, they can't trademark the design of the font, even if they created it.

So, you can claim a single letter from a known font as your trademark? That doesn't seem right. Anyway, since he has altered the logo by adorning it with a beret, I don't find this to be infringing.

Apparently a shape can be patented, so why can't a letter be trademarked?

pretty sure NYT didn't invent that font, even if the NYT has been around over 100 years like many big city papers. also pretty sure NYT isn't the only paper in the country (or the world for that matter) who uses that font or "The ____ Times" in its name. Should they start suing the Times Picayune, the LA Times, or hell... Time magazine?

oh well, this may all become moot anyway... may they eventually RIP (like other papers dying off).

I think this is one of the cases where I see both sides of the argument. Their log is somewhat iconic, so I can understand why they'd want to be protective of it. (Whether they can lay claim to it as a trademark I am not nearly smart enough in that area to comment on). However, this is pretty clearly a parody account (and even says as much), so i'm not sure they really have any grounds based on the logo modification. Ultimately, removing the logo should make the account fully in the clear, and is definitely the path of least resistance. Bit of a head scratcher really, by doing so they've dramatically bumped up the viability of the parody account.

Hey guys, hang on a second. The logo has clearly been the logo of the NYTimes for quite some time. All the twitter account did was put a berret on it. Perhaps they could have contacted the account and asked nicely, or perhaps they did and the account holder said no.

However legally, they are in the right because until now, someone could have confused that for an account owned by the NYTimes. The only change was to change the logo to make it less confusing, but it's right back up posting satire. So what exactly is the big "butt hurt" here? If you don't defend your trademarks you lose them. Seems pretty straightforward to me and neither side is reeling from it nor did either side severely overreact, did they?

Did you miss the disclaimer to the right of the logo, where the words "This is a parody account" appear? That should pretty much handle any confusion from people who think the NYT might actually put a beret on their logo.

I was chatting about this with a lawyer who pointed out that bigger trademark defense cases are a little easier down the road if you can demonstrate that you've been making efforts to protect it all along, and much more difficult if someone can point to a case in which you didn't seem to care enough to complain.

In other words, it might be less about this particular blogger and more about maintaining diligence for the sake of the bigger picture. If they go letting twitter accounts goof on the logo, they're inviting trouble when they go after whole newspapers effectively ripping off NYT material verbatim — which, make no mistake, does happen, and to an alarming degree (depending who you ask).

I thought the point was interesting, especially imagining society to be somewhat litigious by nature, that this was in effect a defensive move against such litigation.

So, you can claim a single letter from a known font as your trademark? That doesn't seem right. Anyway, since he has altered the logo by adorning it with a beret, I don't find this to be infringing.

Apparently a shape can be patented, so why can't a letter be trademarked?

pretty sure NYT didn't invent that font, even if the NYT has been around over 100 years like many big city papers. also pretty sure NYT isn't the only paper in the country (or the world for that matter) who uses that font or "The ____ Times" in its name. Should they start suing the Times Picayune, the LA Times, or hell... Time magazine?

oh well, this may all become moot anyway... may they eventually RIP (like other papers dying off).

I think if they started trying to chase other The _____ Times papers the London original might have a few opinions about that. Let's not give Murdoch any more ideas please!

(A) : You can't trademark anything that is a basic component of speech, in and of itself. So 'The' is not able to be trademarked by itself, much less a single letter (you can bet if you could, Apple would have a trademark on the letter i). You can, of course, create a stylized 'The' and trademark that, which leads us to...(B) : The NYT did not create the font they are using for their T, they used an existing publicly available font, so they have no creative rights to the actual design of the T.

C. And most importantly, they do not use the stylized T on its own in commerce. Ergo, they have no claim to its use.

Hey guys, hang on a second. The logo has clearly been the logo of the NYTimes for quite some time. All the twitter account did was put a berret on it. Perhaps they could have contacted the account and asked nicely, or perhaps they did and the account holder said no.

However legally, they are in the right because until now, someone could have confused that for an account owned by the NYTimes. The only change was to change the logo to make it less confusing, but it's right back up posting satire. So what exactly is the big "butt hurt" here? If you don't defend your trademarks you lose them. Seems pretty straightforward to me and neither side is reeling from it nor did either side severely overreact, did they?

Well, taking a logo and putting a silly hat on it is asking for trouble. I mean, you *could* fight that (make an art project out of it and you'll probably win the case) but on the other hand, a logo is a logo. If dropping the logo is the only thing required to be able to continue, freedom is not affected here in any way.

Still, the NYT is just being idiotic here. This is just like offering free help with PR for someone.

Anyway. This is just entertaining, not more, not less.

Freedom is affected. Parody shouldn't be dulled because of a BS claim that is in no way going to cause confusion. Freedom of speech requires a strong justification, and defrauding consumers is a valid case, bit doesn't apply here. I would contend that trademark law cannot possibly be applied here.

There seems to be confusion about what can be trademarked. It doesn't matter if it is a common font or just a single letter. Almost any identifiable mark can be trademarked within a defined domain. Pretty much every letter and common word is trademarked in some way.

This may or may not be a good thing, but it is the way trademarks work in America.

Lets SWAMP the internet with the NYT "logo" variations. See how many of us receive cease and desist notifications from the lawyers. Take it International. Let NYT foot the legal costs of contacting all the people all over the planet who join into this game.

Lets SWAMP the internet with the NYT "logo" variations. See how many of us receive cease and desist notifications from the lawyers. Take it International. Let NYT foot the legal costs of contacting all the people all over the planet who join into this game.